DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 10140943 A, hereinafter CN ‘943.
CN ‘943 discloses a gadolinium (III) chelate produce by the reaction of oligomeric ethylenediamine-N,N’-bis(acetanilide)-diactate with GdCl3 aqueous solution, with a molecular weight of 2885 (Example 1). The chelate is disclosed to have lower toxicity, good biocompatibility and improved stability as a contrast agent (description and pg 2 ¶ 3).
Claims 1-3, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Unaleroglu et al (J of Appl Polymer Sci, v 56, no 10, 1239-1243, 1995).
Unaleroglu et al discloses a PAA aqueous solution having a molecular weight of 230,000 produced by reacting a metal nitrate solution to obtain gadolinium(III)-PAA chelate (Experiment, ¶ 1, Table 1, and solution 1).
Claims 1, 4, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hummel et al (US 20090238767).
Hummel et al discloses gadolinium chelated to polylysine was well known as imaging agents abstract and (¶ 45).
Claims 1, 5-8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoyama et al (Magn Reson Mater Phy 33, 527–536 2020).
Yokoyama et al discloses known Gd chlelates for macromolecular MRI contrast agents include chelates of polyserine, polylactic, PEG, and polyglutamine (pg 532 Table 2, .
Claims 1-2, 9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111643684 A, hereinafter CN ‘684.
CN ‘684 discloses gadolinium chelated to human proteins for use as contrast agents (abstract, Example 1, and claim 1).
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Zhou et al (Wires, Nanomedicien and Nanibiotechnology, V 5, Iss 1, 2013, 1-18).
Zhou et al discloses gadolinium chelated to RGD peptides (see Tumor-Targeting Small Molecular Gd(III) CA).
Claims 1-2, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Podgorna et al (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces Volume 153, 1 May 2017, Pages 183-189).
Podgorna et al discloses gadolinium alginate nanogels.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 10140943 A, hereinafter CN ‘943.
The reference is discussed above, but does not teach the specific molarity for forming the chelates.
Where the prior art teaches the components to formulate the chelates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of each component to produce the desired reaction.
Claims 1-3, 12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Unaleroglu et al (J of Appl Polymer Sci, v 56, no 10, 1239-1243, 1995).
The reference is discussed above, but does not teach the specific molarity for forming the chelates.
Where the prior art teaches the components to formulate the chelates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of each component to produce the desired reaction.
Claims 1, 4, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hummel et al (US 20090238767).
The reference is discussed above, but does not teach the specific molarity for forming the chelates.
Where the prior art teaches the components to formulate the chelates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of each component to produce the desired reaction.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoyama et al (Magn Reson Mater Phy 33, 527–536 2020).
The reference is discussed above, but does not teach the specific molarity for forming the chelates.
Where the prior art teaches the components to formulate the chelates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of each component to produce the desired reaction.
Claims 1-2, 9, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111643684 A, hereinafter CN ‘684.
The reference is discussed above, but does not teach the specific molarity for forming the chelates.
Where the prior art teaches the components to formulate the chelates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of each component to produce the desired reaction.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Zhou et al (Wires, Nanomedicien and Nanibiotechnology, V 5, Iss 1, 2013, 1-18).
The reference is discussed above, but does not teach the specific molarity for forming the chelates.
Where the prior art teaches the components to formulate the chelates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of each component to produce the desired reaction.
Claims 1-2, 11, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Podgorna et al (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces Volume 153, 1 May 2017, Pages 183-189).
The reference is discussed above, but does not teach the specific molarity for forming the chelates.
Where the prior art teaches the components to formulate the chelates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of each component to produce the desired reaction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J PACKARD whose telephone number is (571)270-3440. The examiner can normally be reached Mon 2-6pm and Tues-Fri (9am-6pm + mid-day flex).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at (571) 272-6897. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BENJAMIN J PACKARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612